If I recall correctly, the landing location changed long after the software was written. When written, they were planning on a location without such cliffs.
I vastly prefer pgup and pgdn there. Moving between tabs in a browser is Ctrl+PgDn / Ctrl+PgUp, and physically mapping it near left/right arrows matches my mental mapping.
> Communication is about being understood, not being fair.
This is why in some cases it's better to say "Just" instead of trying to hide what you're trying to say in order to maybe be more sensitive without even knowing if that's necessary.
For this situation, I tend to phrase it as "Can we just <x>"? which might be received better than "Just <x>", but "just" is an important word here - I want the other person to understand that I think this ought to be easy. If it's not, I probably want to know why, because that will give me more information about the problem and possible solutions.
Per the comment you're replying to, "...that moment is not shown from the cockpit camera because he killed the engine. And if he killed the engine, he probably never tried to restart it, and never made any radio calls."
I think people are fixating on one problem here as an example of how broken the UI is. What about the problem where a pilot gets great down, does a go around, and forgets to put the gear up? In this case, how could anyone defend not having the plane out the gear up automatically, with warnings?
Just because we have an "obvious example right in front of us" does not mean it is the only failure mode that needs to be considered in the design of the system.
Learning to swim in a shallow pool is _easier_ than just getting thrown into the deep end, but it's not faster, and the learning isn't as likely to occur.
Okay, it's science in the sense that it makes predictions. So it's a theory. Is it science in the sense that the theory has been tested, and peer reviewed? As soon as you started in on the "anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist" part, I got the sense that you're somewhat invested in this being true. But science means more than proposing an idea; it means testing the predictions, looking for evidence, subjecting it to a critical eye and seeing if it withstands objective scrutiny. Is that the case here?
If you REALLY believe in this sentiment fueling this article, then you shouldn't ever do anything. "We've made mistakes, and we shouldn't do anything until we're perfect." Fine, lay down and die, and the rest of us will keep trying to be better, failing often, but improving gradually.
But you can choose to play games that don't have the feature. When Android was first starting, I wanted to get into gaming on my phone - but these days I don't bother, even if I hear good things about a game, because the odds are too great that it's ruined with freemium crap if it's on mobile.
Currently in OMSCS, after very recently taking some bachelor's level courses. The OMSCS classes are significantly tougher, go far deeper into the material, require more research and involve less hand-holding than the bachelor's level classes.
Am I reading this right, that Adblock considers chum boxes acceptable ads? I never really considered it; I have AdBlock Plus installed and have seen way too many of those. Does uBlock Origin block them?
The very first sentence of this very short linked page is "An interesting piece from Wetzel et al., who find no evidence for a commonly reported narcissism epidemic over the past 10-20 years, based on the perception that today’s popular culture encourages individuals to engage in self-inflation"
This is literally the exact kind of no-evidence comment the link is meant to refute.
I've taken to immediately disabling an app's notifications entirely the first time they present this useless stuff, and nearly every app does it now. Does anyone actually WANT notifications like this?
If future work can add new artificial amino acids mapped that can be specified using the new base pairs, then it would be adding something categorically new - but still seems pretty far off.
"Speaking as an avid desktop user, every smartphone looks like pure garbage next to my 3 GHz processor and 16 gigs of RAM and to add insult to injury you need to power it from a battery that can run out, for the privilege of a worse experience.
They're expensive, you look incredibly stupid using one, you'll beat the crap out of the processor to make it work all for the joy of running the same programs you would've been running from a comfortable chair on a superior machine, on a screen less than a quarter the size."
VR headsets are fundamentally different from a screen strapped to your face, and provide a fundamentally different experience. Rotational and positional tracking with low latency mean that your view matches how you rotate your head, as if the entire environment around you is a screen. And tracked inputs give you ways of communicating 3D data that otherwise aren't really done on computers.
The Virtual Boy was a sad imitation, and while the Rift and Vive aren't legit holodecks, you're doing yourself a disservice by writing them off completely right now. I'd recommend trying a demo if you can find someone who has them!
I always thought that shooters worked well on the Wii - simple rumble force feedback gives you recoil, and the Wiimotes work great as pointers, because the pointing mechanism was closed loop. What they lacked was closed loop position tracking of the Wiimote itself, which is why we ended up with terrible waggle controls in games. Oculus Touch & the lighthouse system will be closed loop, so they should be significantly better.
I think you nailed it here. I started learning SQL years ago from W3Schools, and it was great because it got right to the point. I can't imagine trying to get a handle on something completely new by starting with full reference material.
Seems that people hate W3Schools for not being something it isn't supposed be?